Re: [PATCH 04/10] Don't stress 'remote' in "Data Caching" in doc

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:16:46 -0800
>> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
>> Cc: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>>
>> >> > Thanks.  But may I ask in the future not to split the patches to
>> >> > documentation that are related to the same series?  When you split
>> >> > them, it makes the review harder, as I see the documentation changes
>> >> > piecemeal, rather than together.
>> >>
>> >> That may be hard to apply in general.
>> >
>> > I don't see why it would be.  Can you elaborate?
>>
>> We actively ask people to do the opposite for code.
>
> I don't understand why, but I won't argue about that part.
>
>> So we would have one rule for code and the opposite rule for docs.
>
> Yes, but I see no problem here: the translation of code rules to docs
> is problematic anyway.

I think it would depend on the patch.
In general I'd just apply something intuitive based on how I'm
submitting the code changes.

>> Sometimes a patch series will have several doc additions, that while
>> collectively may appear as one doc patch, the submitter chose to break
>> them up to keep them with their respective code parts.
>
> I'm asking that all documentation changes for a series appear as one
> patch.

I can add something to the patch submission guidelines that says that.

>> I think it should be ok if someone did that ... we have a lot of rules
>> to what is an acceptable patch already.
>
> I didn't suggest to add a new rule, I was just asking several
> individuals to humor me.  They can elect to ignore my request, if they
> don't want to.
>
>> Can I suggest that we allow any GM to approve doc changes.
>> We need all the review bandwidth we can get.
>
> If you think I'm slow in reviewing, let's talk about that.

Rather, I didn't want to suggest an increased workload without also
suggesting a way to share it.